Archive
The Denial of Death (Part 1)
I am studying Korean. Why?
My Korean is not very good. My grammar is horrific, my vocabulary is worse than the 5-year olds at my church and my comprehension is no better than my Chinese and Japanese classmates who just started learning a few months ago. However, the one area of Korean I know decently is food. This has much to do with when I grew up, my grandmother lived with our family.
My grandmother who I refer to as 할머니 (korean for grandma) always made me food. Most of the time, it would be something simple: a plate of fried rice with a fried egg on top 옴우라이스 (omurice), or maybe a cold bowl of spicy noodles 열무국수(yulmoo gooksoo). When she made American dishes she would do so with what she knew; I remember loudly complaining every time she cooked my pancakes in sesame oil 참기름(chamgirum).
I wasn’t particularly kind to my grandmother. If you cannot tell already, I have the tendency to be a bit petulant and childish. I remember the intense embarrassment I had when I saw her picking acorns off neighbor’s yards to make 도토리묵 (dotori mook) or when I had to explain to a friend’s mom why my grandmother was pulling out what seemed like strands of grass to make 부추김치 (boochoo kimchi). Other stuff though tasted fine, was just downright nasty. For instance 청국장 (chungookjang) required fermenting soybeans in blocks. The resulting product makes a fine base for a soup, but smells like a combination of unwashed feet, feces and a really good cheese.
By the time I went to college, I realized how much I missed her food when I had to eat cafeteria food. I soon found a few Korean restaurants and what they lacked in quality, I decided to make up in quantity, as a I became the proverbial college fat ass. During this time, my grandmother grew increasingly weak and by the time I graduated and started work, she was no longer able to live with us at home, needing the care provided at an assisted living facility.
I was only able to visit perhaps once a month, if at all, due to work. As she grew more and more weak, her comprehension of my Kon-glish lessened severely. Often, I would just sit by her side as she would ask questions and I would answer yes or no. I eventually was laid off from work, which made for a rather depressing time. Nonetheless in hindsight, I am glad that I was able to spend more time with her during her last moments on earth.
For me, everything revolved around food at that point. The few words I knew well enough in Korean were all foods that she had made me. I would say in Korean, “Halmoni, you remember when you made this for me?” She would nod her head and stare at me as at this point it was too difficult for her to speak. Also, she simply wasn’t eating food anymore; an occasional spoonful of papaya was all she took at this point. This was a maddening thought to anyone who saw her feed her extended family for so many years. Even when I became older and was more than capable of making food for myself, she always insisted on doing so for me.
I will do my best here to learn what I can and honor the language that my grandmother spoke. Nonetheless, in many ways, I failed her. Unable to communicate to her in any significant way, bothered me afterwards. We say “live to have no regrets”, this world is too imperfect for any of us to truly be able say such a thing. I know coming back in a few months my Korean is not going to suddenly become immaculate, but I certainly hope I can improve. Even if I become a Korean language scholar, it won’t change the fact I wasn’t able to communicate to her well before she passed away. In that respect, there is no way around it, I failed her.
Our thoughts are filled with collective doubts, fears, worries and regrets, and we have nothing to hope in if death is merely the final stamp. This can be demoralizing and with respect with my grandmother I perhaps failed her quite a bit. Yet broken bits of “Konglish” wasn’t the only way that I communicated with her. Through her food, she demonstrated a sacrificial love that I am sure many of you could relate to with family members of your own. This language of love was probably the best way she communicated to me.
I want to honor my grandmother in learning what Korean I can even if its not perfect. My goal is not a unique one; I am sure many of you have relatives or friends whose lives you want to honor in your actions. There’s that phrase, “Love begets love” and in this case all of us hope to carry out the same loving kindness we received and saw in our loved ones who passed. Even though death hurts and is painful, we hope our actions in love can last even longer than the lives that live; that we can leave a legacy that is more worthwhile than the simple things we see here on earth. We hope this power can transform us for better. Our whole bodies ache for redemption.
As a Christian, the starting point is very similar. We look at the death of our Savior and we respond to it. We honor the legacy of our God who demonstrated the ultimate sacrifice in love by dying for us. While failure seems to be an integral part of human existence, Christ seems to tell us our failures don’t make us who we are. But there’s hope in this death; one that says if we believe in the promise, if we honor this death, we can transform in love and turn impending death into life. We hope to honor this life, by living like Christ and learning what love really entails.
There is something miraculous in seeing people who once lived only thinking about themselves; practitioners of malice and deceit, who practice love and life. People seem to respond to love though, we’ve seen this transformation in people who we would have otherwise dismissed as a lost cause. You are right if you are thinking, that doesn’t prove anything. But maybe this a clue and key to our future. That the ultimate act of love was not just a promise of change on earth but points to redemption against even death itself.
I believe I will see my loved ones again. You see, as cynical as I am, I believe in the power of love. Not my own love, focused on my own worries and needs; but the love of Christ outward focused and wholly selfless.
I believe this power can redeem the most selfish of souls; even my own.
Measurism
Its not my term, I plucked it from Stephen L. Carter, a professor at Yale Law, who wrote about it in a book called God’s Name in Vain. This post is piggybacking off a great idea of his, so props to him.
He writes about it here:
This ideology, which we might call measurism, has a single, very simple dictum: That which can be measured is of greater importance than that which cannot.
Standardized Tests
I like standardized tests. I find the cold hard number it spits out and the percentile ranking it assigns as a great way to tell me how cool I am.You get X number on the SAT/GMAT/LSAT/MCAT/Firefighter’s Aptitude Test/Miller’s Analogy Test. The question always seems to be: Where do I stand on the totem pole? ST’s give us a cold hard answer, Yes! this affirms I am smarter than Y percentage of people.
EXCEPT….not really. What does this score really tell you? I would tell you that it tells you that this person can do well on this type of test. If a school wants to use this score, it up to them I suppose. But, there’s all kinds of craziness about testing nowadays. Some parents whose kids do really well on them will beam about how “bright” or “gifted” their kids are (which is probably not the entire truth), while a few parents of kids who don’t do well will inform us of some inadequacy of the test to measure the “total package”. Teacher’s unions seem to hate the word test, because they categorically deny its ability to measure something important. (I would say we should use it, just not overuse it, a tricky task indeed) Carter writes aptly:
A speedometer, in the absence of an external judgment (such as a speed limit), provides no information about right and wrong.
He continues later:
Most colleges and universities love to claim, in their admission materials, that they consider many indices other than grades and test score-background, extracurricular activities and so forth. But, when it comes time to tell the alumni about the entering class, most college presidents and deans probably do the same old thing: They stand up and cite the outstanding grades and test scores of those who have recently matriculated. We measure what we can measure, and what we cannot measure we claim to value but in practice, we discard.
In a similar way, I was always obsessed with numbers. I remember during the middle of one season in basketball when I thought that Dominique Wilkins was a better player than Michael Jordan. Why? Because he averaged a few fractions of a point more than MJ and I figured because of that he was better. Now for those of you who think I am merely ranting about statistical wonkishness, I am not. But you could see how silly my logic was here. My mistake was using what limited information I had, and I unfortunately drew a conclusion that made me seem like I’ve never watched a game of basketball.
We Worship the Totem Pole
My friends called me an idiot, which is fair, yet we do this all the time elsewhere (and I am a smarter fan of the game now). We love to open up U.S. News read about the top schools (this phenomena is particularly prevalent in Korea, where a man saying the word “Harvard” or “Yale”, and “I have a U.S. passport” would probably drown in the eventual swarm of Korean women.) It extends elsewhere, perhaps though not as obvious. My blog name is derived from Thorstein Veblen’s term, “Conspicuous Consumption“. While I won’t go into too much detail, its really just the concept of “keeping up with the Joneses”. I buy a car, with the hope others see this purchase so they know how awesome I am. A rather clever way of saying, “By purchasing this vehicle/home/frozen margarita machine, I am demonstrating my ability to measure up to or greater than your standards.” If you think I am insane, I ask that you take a look at what drove our financial crisis. This article notes this nicely (about housing):
As other buyers and many bankers became more willing to take absurd risks, even previously prudent consumers felt they had to follow suit.
Hint: People weren’t just taking out massive loans to finance homes because they thought interest rates were advantageous.
What do we Rank and Rate in Others?
But I’ve already spoken about that here and here, so lets change the emphasis a bit. Take relationships (living with an aunt who seems to think I still need my hand held at crosswalks, makes me think I am probably not the best person to write about this). I was having a conversation with a few friends when one of them discussed their upcoming date with a man she found on eharmony. When we asked her how she was matched to this specific guy, she admitted it was difficult after the website gave her a list of choices. So she ordered the listings by their height and chose the one who was the tallest. Was this the best way to do things? Perhaps. But I am not so sure the guys who were not quite 6’1 were worse just because they aren’t quite up to par in terms of height. Was it her fault? I can’t blame her entirely for making a choice on a limited amount of information, but I think the problem lies in when we decide to place an overemphasis on what we do know. The problem is when we overemphasize the things we can measure, we decrease the emphasis on what we can’t measure or quantify. We all suffer from a desire to rank something; and damn it if we can’t, as Carter implied, we’ll just use what is easy to measure.
For instance, guys might for fun assign a numeric value to a girl, saying something to the effect of, “Wow, that girl is an 8.5!”. I will take a Zosima stance on this particular behavior and say, “Each one of us is guilty before everybody for everything, and I am more guilty than anybody else.” Might I also interject that this sort of mental calculus is not unique to men or romantic relationships. Now you ask me what an 8.5 is and I will tell you I have some vague idea that isn’t logically quantifiable per se. The point of this exercise is obvious: even though we don’t know what an 8.5 is, we know its better than an 8. The numbers are a convenient measure to say, “I like this one better than the other.”
What About the Stuff we can’t Measure?
Stephen Carter writes:
We might say that we value honesty-or love……or God. None of the concepts, we will loudly insist, can be measured; and all of this, we will add, is what we value most.
I can assure you that these ranking systems are indexed very little on one’s character. I will argue this condition lends itself to overemphasizing, again, what is easier to measure: looks, charm and perhaps status. Phrases like “She’s hot”, “He’s a baller” etc. don’t lend themselves to deliberate thinking about one’s capacity to be trusting, selfless or loving. This is a mistake that I certainly make over and over again; I take what I can initially and make a judgment call about someone based on the visually quick and aesthetically pleasing. My eHarmony filter doesn’t have a tab for ranking one’s character damn it! I’ll take it because it is so easy and so superficially pleasing. Like the colleges before, we all might say we emphasize certain things, but when push comes to shove, we know what really drives our desires. I blame this in part with a culture (that I am certainly not above) that has lost another meaningful characteristic: patience. Its easy to conclude someone is visually attractive or will become a substantial provider. Taking the time to draw out a person’s character seems to be more and more time wasted in this fast-paced world of ours. It could also be a reason why we might be quicker to end relationships when something “better” comes along. I blog as concisely as possible (I swear I do!) knowing full well most of you probably get bored after the first few words.
Grace is the New Starting Point
Its funny because as a Christian, this is a clear demonstration that I “misunderestimate” the concept of grace. Men are called in the book of Ephesians to “love their wives, as Christ loved the Church”. While I am not a biblical scholar, the love that Christ had for his church was surely not a conditional one based on a standard of measurements that any one of us would hold valuable. Many of early disciples came from lowly (fishermen) or unsavory (tax collectors) positions. Yet he loved them unconditionally and without prerequisite; his love was not based on the initial “sexiness” of those he saw as the foundation of the church. I think that we have been drawing too many lines in the sand though, lines that we can quantify or measure but that we overemphasize and lines that eventually fade away literally with age.
Later in Ephesians, Paul exhorts husbands to “love their wives as their own bodies, he who loves his wife loves himself”. Jumping a little deeper into the fray of relationships, perhaps the bigger problem here is that many of us don’t really love ourselves. I think our own emphasis on measuring up others is just a deeper reflection of one’s own insecurities about themselves. I won’t speak for anyone else here; but I know I am afraid of what the mirror in the morning will tell me, I worry about whether I’ve done well enough at school, I wonder whether I will have made enough money and I wonder what others think of me in all of this. These lines in the sand we’ve been drawing for others remind us painfully about all the lines we fail to meet.
Assuming an omniscient and perfect God, this would be problematic, if we were called to fulfill his standards of excellence. Thus there should be an awareness of the human inability to meet excellence. Sure, we might set up our own standards of excellence, but amidst perfection this becomes meaningless. But if understand the nature of grace; how God doesn’t call us to live in excellence because Christ was the not only symbol but fulfillment of excellence that we so desire in ourselves. This human condition of insecurity is wiped clean; our knowing we don’t have to pretend to be anything we aren’t. There’s a flipside as well, we understand we can look at others in a different light as well. Amidst our own failings, we learn to place less of an emphasis on the “obvious failings” of others. Understanding the gift of grace, helps us realize when someone truly says the love you, they are demonstrating a capacity of grace that you probably didn’t deserve. Or you might think I am insane and are saying, “BDK, you’ve got to be kidding me. I am supposed to marry just anyone then. This is dumb, what kind of love is that?” I hope you don’t read this is an exercise in trying to find the “perfect” companion, I would argue that is impossible. But maybe instead of going back to the place where we drew all these lines in the sand, we can start at a new location called grace. Perfection is above our pay grade, but changing the framework is certainly not beyond our means.
Glenn Beck is wrong
So Glenn Beck tells Christians to leave churches if they mention any sort of social justice.
While I am not a big fan of liberal churches that merely substitutes the gospel with messages of social justice, Glenn Beck is proving he is no master of nuance or careful argument. I can’t blame him for doing it probably sells books. Perhaps he is like me concerned about Christian relying too much on government as the means to dispense this justice or maybe a Reformed Christ-centered hermeneutic? Nope,his statements are far too categorical here. I won’t pretend Glenn Beck actually cares about that stuff. But he’s definitely wrong here, churches should be preaching social justice, but very carefully in that. He can’t pretend the Bible doesn’t speak anything of social justice, especially with the Minor Prophets admonishing people for being insensitive to the needs of the “widows, the poor and the sick”.
Take a look at Psalm 82:
82:1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!
Now gods (lowercase) are the judges of this earth, those who are failing to fully reflect the justice that is God’s character. This is the position that we all seem to share in our own imperfections. These people are ultimately called out for failing to address these injustices on Earth. The final verse calls for God to ultimately bring justice; justice that Christians believe came in the form of Jesus Christ. We know we are supposed to attack injustices because Christ demonstrated this to us by the work of the cross. Ultimately, we are supposed to be not only aware of the physical poverty of others but our own spiritual brokenness; the very brokenness that is the cause of injustice.
As much as Beck is afraid of the Christian faith becoming meaningless if it becomes too liberalized, I can say the same about a Christian faith about one that doesn’t embrace social justice. We are called to do justice, not because of our own just natures, but because justice was (or wasn’t) given to all of us: the punishment we rightly deserved taken by someone innocent of blame.
This was the move that is slowly unwinding the cycle of injustice. Christians are called to unravel injustice, by taking up our own crosses each and every day. Sorry Mr. Beck but you are woefully incorrect. You keep talking like this there will be more news stories like this……
I am sorry Kristof, but you can’t have it both ways.
The gist is simple: Christians need to spend less time focusing on “moral” issues of abortion and gay marriage and more on “social justice” issues of aiding the “poor” and “needy”. Christians and liberals can unite on these social issues where liberals seemed to have had the upper-hand.
It definitely is an argument that needs to be made and I praise him for at least pointing out how many Christians have already done incredible work in trying to roll back the growing wave of injustice in this world. A bunch of friends (Christians mostly) have been touting this article and while I found its contentions promising I found a couple points a bit trying too hard to be equivocal in its approach.
For instance he writes,
For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”
While he could argue that certain believers conflate conservative and Christian positions, that doesn’t seem to be the argument he makes. Instead its a convenient way for him to straw-man Christians in multiple ways by lumping them with conservatives like Jesse Helms. While this makes for excellent rhetorical effect, its also fallacy. While Hitler was a vegetarian this does not translate then that all vegetarians are suddenly fans of eradicating the Jewish race. Likewise, Christians can’t all be clumped as apathetic to social needs in foreign countries just because the party that they commonly are associated with or one its most polarizing leaders does.
He also does a nice little slight of hand here shifting the framework of being opposed to “government aid” as a meaning Christians intentions were not to be save-the-worlders. I think its important to note, because he lauds the organization World Vision later in the piece (which kind of refutes his notion that only secular liberals cared about the world before). Perhaps Christians like myself (although I do not speak for Christians as a whole) think that the proper place of aid is not through the bureaucratic mess we know as the federal government, but more efficiently disbursed through more intimate programs. Certainly this view is not unique to Christians, for example, Nigerian economist James Shikwati.
He writes later interestingly,
A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda. If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.
So I am curious if he writes this, what his problem with Christians is in comparison to liberals. The read I am getting is liberals sneer and Christians give more money and sacrifice more of their time as well as resources. Yet Christians need to learn to hold off on the “sanctimony” and liberals need to sneer a little less? My point is not that Christians have the upper hand on social giving, but why does he even need to make these distinctions in the first place? (and shouldn’t liberals find this somewhat offensive?) Its certainly a convenient way for him to show how he disagrees vehemently with Christian social positions. I am sorry but this “sanctimony” with issues regarding sex, abortion etc. is also the very “sanctimony” that compels Christians to do missions work in foreign country even without proselytizing. You can pick and choose what you like, Mr. Kristof thats your prerogative, but Christians are then “sanctimonious” in espousing certain doctrinal positions on BOTH social justice issues and sanctity of life issues.
Overall, this piece is a bit condescending but I can’t totally blame the author. I do think if anything it should compel Christian to make more clear why we serve others in social justice. While feeling good about ourselves and helping others in some sort of Kumbahyah, “We are the World, way is nice and convenient, I find it utterly incomplete. Kristof criticizes the idea of pro-life meaning more than just opposing abortion, I would take it step further and say nobody lives like they are pro-life. Some might tout their record on abortion others might tout their record on helping the sick and poor, but even in the best of us, our hearts steer us to be pro-“my own life”.
How about this for equivocation: we are all in need of a Savior. This troubled world is a “macrocosm” of our own brokenness and imperfection, but also a reminder of how the Lord’s work on the cross is not only to change the unjust social structures of this world, but the twisted nature of our own hearts. Our conviction ultimately stems from the idea that God paid for sin and injustice on the cross. Our aid to the poor is a direct analogy to the spiritual poverty we have in comparison to the God that is perfect; how fallen we have become in our own selfishness, insecurities and envy. This is not to soften the fact that these people need help; they do. Christians know that “faith without works is dead” and should work to undo these grave injustices. But Christians “do justice” not because we are better than others, but are actively acknowledging that Christ did even more than we could ever do.
The word “retard”….
Rahm Emmanuel’s invidious use of the word retard has been heavily criticized. Take from it what you want, as Rush Limbaugh used it similar fashion. Not surprisingly, Sarah Palin responded and showed us nothing is too big or small to politicize and polarize. (JW, why the hell is she always on TV. If liberals just left her alone and stopped trying to pin her every move then her apologists would never be able to paint her as a martyr. Instead her every move is broken down by AP “fact-checkers” and scrutinized, jeez, she’s just as unemployed as I am!. It’s almost as if its strategic, get her spotlight up so dems can face her later in 2012)
Anyways I bring this up, not to crack on either of the two but because of my own behavior around a member of my former church who is retarded. I don’t mean this in the sense of “I hate this kid, he’s a retard”, but objectively retarded, with mild cognitive and social deficiencies. This man lets call him “Jon”; a consistently faithful member and attendee of the church, is mildly retarded insofar as he is capable of driving a vehicle and engaging in most discussions, but has social quirks that can be somewhat distracting and has slower cognitive function. For instance, his remarks in some discussions were considered “conversation-killers” and even though he sometimes was unintentionally rude, nevertheless, he made all sorts of people quite uncomfortable.
I overheard one member of my church tell me that there were a few people who found it irritating that they had to sit next to Jon during a group event. This of course caused the bells to ring in my head, as I angrily denounced their antipathy towards this guy who meant no ill or harm. What the F!@# is their problem?? Self-righteousness kicked in full gear.
But as Zosima says, “Each one of us is guilty before everybody for everything, and I am more guilty than anybody else.” I remember many key instances where I would intentionally avoid lengthy conversations with him, especially in group settings. I found his presence to be most of the time a nuisance and did my best to just avoid him. It wasn’t that I hated him per se, I just didn’t want him to be around me. I had been discussing this with a friend, when he reminded me of Matthew 5:22:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old,’You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, Raca! will be liable to the hell of fire.
What a radical message! For those who think the Christian faith should be a display of conservative morals and values, guess what, the very leader of the faith is saying, merely practicing good deeds is not enough, even our very tainted thoughts are deserving of highest condemnation. I don’t think you need to be “born-again” to realize the impact of what JC is saying. You see, “Raca!” here translates to “you fool!” When a person is driven to murder, he desires to existentially eliminate another person. In essence, he is trying to say, “I hate you so much, I’d rather not have you around anymore.”Jesus points out in the same way that when we are angry at someone, when we say “Raca!” we are saying to that person, “I wish you didn’t exist.” Murder, to Christ, was an intense desire that wished a certain person removed from your life. Surely, I didn’t plan on murdering this guy or harbor any thoughts of doing so? Yet, where was my heart just a second ago; while I didn’t cut him out physically from existence, I just chose to amputate him from any personal contact. When I said before, “I didn’t want him to be around me”, what made me really all that different?
You know its really easy to be patient towards that really cute girl, the absolutely charming guy or the person you are marrying! I think it is great that many couples strive to be patient with each other. However, true patience should extend towards those who are most trying to us. Its easier to be patient to the person you like so much that you find yourself engaging in DeBeer’s swindle of paying two months salary. (No a diamond isn’t forever) How about showing patience to someone who irritates you immensely by always talking about pro wrestling?
I remember in school we were taught the concept of being “politically correct”; we were not to use the term retarded and instead accept these students as “special”. Yet, this word “special” held little sway in my heart and mind, because realistically there was nothing special about these kids to me. In a culture that told me to value accomplishments, awards and status, these students were surely on the low end of the totem pole. Fine, I will acknowledge their nominal specialness only to assuage the concerns of my insufferably liberal teacher. The problem here was that by forcing me to recite this line about their specialness, somehow this would sensitivity training would be sufficient to change my attitudes towards those who were handicapped. In the same sense, the solution is not changing our outward sensitivity towards others.
What bothers me the most is that this man will find great difficulty in finding a wife, never have any potential for a lucrative career and will continue to face a certain amount of ostracism due to his condition. It seems almost morbid to admit such, but it makes me wonder about how this world keeps on spinning? Is his redemption his achievement? I hope not. I wonder why then I need to do the same for myself. This is where I can understand liberation from being around the “weakest” of us. Society reminds us that our accomplishments give us our value and meaning, yet this notion becomes inevitably paralyzing. As grow and look around me, so many people can literally jump higher, run faster and travel further than me. I know self-centeredness in my own accomplishments becomes crushing in the face of my own imperfection. No matter how many battles we win in this world, if we keep the discussion centered on the here and now, death currently has an undefeated record.
Call me crazy but this causes me to place my hope in something else. Relationships become meaningful and beautiful when we realize that we love someone for not what they accomplish, but for who they are. JC demonstrates this love to us simply and forcefully on the cross. In that sense, the humility that comes from understanding this message helps us to embrace those around us who are difficult to love. We shouldn’t love the Jons of the world because we are forced to, we should love them because to God we are more unlovable than Jon could ever be to us. I hope in that way people can be convicted to love Jon.
(Its interesting because it makes me think about how politicized the abortion debate has become in Christian circles. While I do find conservative arguments persuasive about the sanctity of life, I have to take a more Haeurwas-ian approach to the topic. I think if anything JC’s statement implicates conservatives just as strongly. This is not to morally equivocate and say abortion is ok, but to say that sitting back and merely harboring resentment towards the act is just as evil as the murder you view abortion is. A viewpoint I probably need to think about and ponder more…)
Perhaps I can continue to try to find a way to make my mark on this world, to achieve greatness. But looking at Jon and his own faith, I think I need to start thinking about looking towards a different direction.
Thanks Jah-Mez
Why Africa needs the Big G….
People say I write too much, so I’ll leave a link like a good blog should….
Evolution Part Deux: My response
For those who read the evolution debate. Thank you for your input….
Of course, I always get the final word. A couple clarifying remarks.
1) Neil wrote, “It’s as though you earmarked this special topic, because it challenges your religion, as safe ground to be skeptical.”
2) Fatmir wrote, “There is of course some individualistic selfishness, but I think feelings of guilt and angst about those actions evolved to temper those individualistic desires.” and, “There is also beauty in the chaos that you describe as nature. ”
Now all we need is a hookah, cigarettes (not for me, I prefer brisket) and a deck of cards.
Neil is right, I am with him a hundred percent about finding the best system of governance and rational model to harness this selfishness. I truly believe that best model is one based on the Austrian school of economics (give or take). Now, my bigger problem is that I see this vicious cycle of selfishness. Sure we have elements of teamwork ultimately out of self-interested goals but to take the econ-crisis model (thanks to Fatmir for a particularly insightful conversation): Home mortgagers lied on their income reports, bankers gave “predatory loans”, originators bundled these toxic assets etc.
Fine, we can argue the system is flawed, I agree it is. But I think its a rather incomplete solution. We can increase the scope of governance, but as Neil you should know this would only incentivize “rent-seeking”. My ultimate issue is a lack of satisfaction at our human condition, not that fact that I think evolution scientifically challenges my faith. I am not skeptical about the positive arguments for evolution as Longley noted. I am however disappointed at the end result. WE can’t have it both ways and discuss only the positive manifestations of our selfishness (i.e. self-interested teamwork) and say these show the benefits of evolution. We want to have our cake and eat it too, but then when the crappy side of selfishness creeps up again, we spit up the cake and start all over again. I agree with the arguments there partially; but it ultimately comes down whether we believe ourselves to be unchangeable monoliths of self-centeredness or whether we believe heart redemption is possible.
I argue for the latter and I see when we go against the grain of this natural order. We don’t behave like our lives are largely deterministic; whether its our own edification, our actions towards our children, our deeds towards loved ones. Perhaps attributing these emotions of love and conscience to God is a quite a leap, but I find the alternative impossible to live for. I don’t find that irrational at all….
Why I don’t believe in evolution and the natural order
Do I believe in God? Yes.
Do I believe in evolution the same way? No.
I get a lot of flak from my some pals because they’ll post the latest news about how Christians have gone off the deep end. For instance, they might ask me about a post like this: Majority of Republicans don’t believe in evolution. (thanks actually to David) For instance, they might say, “Do you want to see the exhibit on the T. Rex at the museum? OH wait…you think dinosaurs were buried 1000 years ago in a plot against Christians .” or “You know the DNA evidence against OJ is overwhelming, oh never mind you don’t believe in genetics.” Most people would call these kids a$$h*les, I unfortunately call them my friends.
But here’s the thing: I think evolution is a solid theory based on strong evidence that helps explain the world that we live in today. Although certain Christians might try to poke holes here and there, as if its a necessary means to defend the faith. I find that task largely distracting and a time-waster. This is where Christians, I think get it wrong. No, I don’t mind that we discuss theories like “intelligent design” and find those who dismiss it angrily unwilling to listen to the underlying existential questions. These opposing forces want to seemingly invade each others turf as if their survival depended on it; incongruous fighting as silly as if a Christian called a C-chord evil or if a scientist called romantic feelings meaningless.
You see, I can’t believe in evolution in the same way I believe in a higher power. I understand how it might explain the world: how natural selection eventually weeds out the respective weaklings of our species, the way it explains certain social constructions about “selfishness” and “greed” and “violence”.
It is not that I disagree with the mechanism of evolutions (positive arguments), those arguments I find pretty solid, its that I disagree that this is the way things should be (normative arguments). When Richard Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene, he wrote to describe what actually occurred under evolution not arguing that they were in themselves morally good. So we understand this theory and it helps explain the way we behave, yet somehow I don’t think any of us BELIEVE in evolution.
For instance, Alan Jacobs writes:
Yet although Pinker and like-minded scholars feel they can account pretty well for the prevalence of selfishness and even violence across all human cultures, they have more trouble explaining why we remain uneasy, even guilt-stricken, about our most common tendencies – why selfish and violent are pejorative terms for us.
Its strange because reality presents a scene of constant struggle and change; an idea that dog eat dog is not necessarily bad and ultimately better for our species. Yet even the most libertarian of us were deeply disturbed by the “greed” of those around us. Nobody lauds a child for hitting a smaller child if he wants something from him. “Yes! Assert your genetic dispositions towards power and height because eventually this will marginally increase the possibility of species development.” This is common among all of mankind, yet none of us live as if we believe this.
Its interesting too, when I see those who romanticize the natural order of things. We hope to believe that by understanding nature’s mechanisms we could help explain the world. Unfortunately, for me, this leaves me more confused. Why is the natural order not just lilies and fresh spring air but also volcanic eruption, hurricanes and earthquakes? More importantly, why am I so bothered by it? Perhaps I need to train myself properly, so that I can stoically embrace the world for what it is, how my body will one day return to the earth and provide the organic material that will sustain this earth. This is the state of order on this earth; creation and destruction ebb and flow in a harmonic (chaotic?) cycle.
But this is not the order we embrace as humans; we fight it constantly. We fight it, when we find “protection” and create “cures”, and attempt at lengthening our impermanent state. We fight it when we foster relationships and nurture children or when we clutch the hands of our dying elders. Our heads informs us of this order, but our hearts remain unsatisfied. This is why I don’t believe in evolution or nature, because the science is SO correct. This internal struggle clues me towards the idea that perhaps I wasn’t made to fall alongside this order; that perhaps there is something more?
This is not a proof or argument for the existence for God. But, I am not convinced the redemption or perfection of mankind is answered by subtle mutations over the course of history. Not when its success remains rooted in self-centeredness. Not when its success is contingent on destruction. Not when death is the final state. Call it naive, but its not that I don’t believe evolution, I do; its just that I can’t.
Genesis 3:19
Thanks Dohyun
Father Zosima vs. The Financial Crisis
Excellent responses friends (the checks are in the mail) to my most recent post. A couple things….
Kevin wrote in the comments:
“Moreover, I think you are misappropriating responsibility to the architects of good legislation, instead of the seedy mortgage brokers who exploited it.”
I am not sure what he means by “good” legislation, perhaps morally sound or perhaps structurally foolproof. Regardless, the fact that mortgage brokers could “exploit” it, I think would mean quite the opposite here (I hate the word exploit in general because of its vagueness) My post was not to absolve mortgage brokers of guilt either, but I do think the issue becomes if they are not breaking the law; (in some cases, the law was actually breaking them per Thomas Sowell; throw in minority and underprivileged quotas you’ve got bigger issues pressing the backs of these lenders) You actually wonder how much some of these brokers knew? Just like Wall Street-ers relied heavily on faulty ratings and fees incentivizing transaction volume, I think I could safely say some brokers made assumptions that everybody else was making, including buyers. There were definitely snakes out there, but I attribute it more to a stunning lack of due diligence on both sides. I bring this up because:
A) Its unremarkable, a lot of people screwed up and weren’t necessarily malicious in intent, in the sense I don’t think your average mortgage salesman anticipated he would trigger a massive financial crisis. Remember this was a popular product because it “worked” in a favorable interest rate environment and housing market etc.
B) I still think its unequivocally greedy and f’d up; and speaks to the infinite and insatiable desires of man
Government securing housing for those who couldn’t afford it, and actively encouraging it. Lenders seeing clients as transaction fees for their pockets. Buyers not understanding their inability to cover debt service. Hrmm. Its a macrocosm of Daddy encourages teenage Madison to get a no-limit high interest credit card and Payless Shoe Stores (where the hell do women shop?) suddenly thinks its rich! Notice this cycle perpetuates itself across nations, races and social class.
Regardless, the post is not one purely of political culpability, rather a moral/personal one. The operative quote here is from one of my favorite books, and a book everyone should read, The Karamazov Brothers (the way it really is titled sounds kinda just goofy):
“Each one of us is guilty before everybody for everything, and I am more guilty than anybody else.” Father Zosima
Neil wrote:
I treat human behavior as more or less exogenous and constant. Efforts to temper it, either through faith, institutions, norms, and culture usually fail. What we instead have is a means of organizing society around a given set of behavior preferences – namely sin. If greed is the primary driver of economic growth (Smith), then it is also the driver of crisis.
A really great point there and the topic of which I really want to hit. Thus the biggest problem I see in society is As a Christian who believes in personal redemption, I have to politely disagree. There are many reasons why.
1) Good rules don’t just restrict people they help them learn and process what is right – Take most children (microcosms of sin in my book). A kid might hit his brother to steal his toy. Now one could say he only stopped because of the fear that he was gonna get severely beaten by parents for being a deviant sociopath. Perhaps. But somewhere along the way I think conscience prevails and makes that action impermissible; it becomes unacceptable to him to see his brother needlessly go through pain just because he can’t get what he wants. The rule might be a good disincentive, but it also helps mold the child into understanding why he shouldn’t hit somebody he loves.
2) It’s depressing to consider our status merely subject to a series of exogenous variables – We certainly don’t behave this way. Only the sickest parents would treat their children as pawns in a social game, rather then children who can be nurtured to be responsible and loving beings, not just robots. People marry with the hopes that the covenant they undertake could help shape one another’s character and deepen their love for each other.I think by treating the human condition as immutable (sentiments that are echoed by fatalistic scientists, Amir? Neil?), we also take away a lot of the joy in life. Put it this way, if this were the final solution that was figured out by society, what really is the incentive for people (especially the lesser of us) to”live life to the fullest”?
3) Making rules is an incomplete and unsatisfying solution – as Kevin wrote before about legislation regardless of the rules, people will exploit them. More regulation is purely a palliative measure, I would argue this would only create incentives for people to rent seek with more lobbying/gov’t work instead of ripping off people on the private end. We can continue to insist on making better and better rules, or we could start looking at the supply side and look towards heart transformation. I find Neil’s argument useful because reality presents transformation as insanely difficult; as a Christian I would actually say impossible purely by the strength of our own convictions. Going back to Father Zosima and his thoughts:
“Love redeems and saves everything.”
This is the hope that I have in humanity. This financial crisis is painful, I know firsthand. I also know it was a lot more painful to others with more immediately dire circumstances. This is unmistakeably tragic, yet all we are doing is addressing the issue of pain, we change the doses, prescribe stronger medicine but are unwilling to address the disease itself. Humanity will never change if only presented with that option; its depressing to think we are only left to find ways to numb the pain. Call me naive or innocent, but I think humanity has a much higher upside, not merely confined to the same patterns of behavior ad infinitum.
I have every reason to suddenly pretend I hate the banking industry, I don’t though. This cycle of behavior is not unique to them. Crucifying the bankers is numbing the wound but leaving it open to infection again. What is the idea of love I think is most convicting? I look at the idea of the Cross: Christ dying, not for personal gain, but but what was a selfless act done for others. Yea I know, perhaps its goofy and silly, or even offensive to some, I’ll admit it tough to really get a grip on this idea sometimes myself. But I think this (the Cross) is the new cycle of behavior this world needs; the thing that makes transformation possible and what Zosima tells us can redeem all.
Romans 12:2
You’re greedy! But wait, so am I?
So my buddy Neil wrote about Obama’s plan to tax wall street. Read it. He’s a smart guy and has a legit writing gig although definitely too Democratic party for my tastes. =)
Originally, I was going to write a rebuttal discussing how a punitively natured tax is bad form; whats to say banks won’t conduct their shenanigans outside the US, or move taxable liabilities off the books….yada yada. Well then again, Obama asked nicely, so maybe they’ll oblige:
“Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal, or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities,”
Regardless, lets talk about greed for a sec.
People are quick to point the finger of blame at “greedy, Wall Street businessmen” maybe rightfully so. It should piss people off that comapanies which were ostensibly on the brink of failure and bailed out by taxpayer money are now dishing out loads of bonus money to the very people who might have caused part of this crisis. But lets temper those sentiments for a second. Certainly it might be easy for us to excoriate the “rich” for their excess and greed, but the beginning symptoms of this problem manifested themselves in the form of people who had no business paying their mortgages. As Michael Lewis wrote about AIG,
“Millions of people borrowed money they shouldn’t have borrowed and, not, typically, because they were duped or defrauded but because they were covetous and greedy: they wanted to own stuff they hadn’t earned the right to buy.”
Are we to pretend that the vice of greed is only exclusive to rich people? Was the average American not buying homes they could not afford and taking out credit cards their income could not justify? Lets remember what happened here: Ordinary Americans taking out ridiculous mortgages, banking on the fact that home prices would continue to rise (astronomically too) and having no capability of covering their debt otherwise. How about you with the credit card app in your hand? You put down 100,000 as your income, even though you work at Mickey D’s? Greed was just as rampant in Downtown Detroit and Suburban Springfield as it was in Midtown Manhattan.
As I was discussing this topic with a friend today, we analyzed at a very general level how this mess got started in the first place. A point was made that the finance guy peddling what we now know see as toxic assets obviously did not understand the implications of his actions. He was assured by others that these were “triple A” and “risk-free” securities. He bought insurance to ensure that even if the securities failed they would be backed up. He looked across the street saw his buddy making a killing selling these products. He saw his buyers absolutely enthralled that they were getting stellar returns. Nobody did any homework and boom goes the dynamite.
This recession did not occur because a few ill-willed finance douches decided to incur their wrath on society. This more akin to a bunch of smart ass kids teaming up to do a group assignment, and when due date comes, everybody assumed somebody else did the work. I don’t know about everybody else, but these shortcomings don’t sound so spectacular or dramatic at all.
And maybe that is the exact problem. We are all used to games like Jenga, since we can clearly label the loser. The tower is fallen and the culprit is holding the proverbial piece of the puzzle. Yet in this grand economic version of Jenga, surrounded by our crumbled towers, we are all holding THAT piece. Our most clever solution has been to just rebuild these towers and in these vulnerable times its easy to embrace such a solution. Even the best of us, only slight scathed, are collecting our scraps and wondering how we can achieve that wondrous state of satisfaction. Yet its an illusory hope, the achievements we have mustered today become increasingly boring and irrelevant tomorrow. (see Michael Jordan)
That is why its silly for us to ask ourselves these questions about why OTHER people screwed up. Are these not questions we could fiddle around a bit with and ask ourselves? Its clear we all need to rebuild, but something tells me it goes a little bit deeper than credit cards and mortgages. What we really seem to be ignoring is our very human condition. Nowadays it might be taboo to say it, but Christians call this word sin. Dah! BDK How can you call me a sinner???? Sinfulness is reserved for Hitler and Kim Jong Il and of course, George W. Bush, not me!!
Perhaps with a little introspection we can begin embracing true humility. When we realize we are just pretending when we think our deeds our so much better than others, we fail to see excess creep in other ares of our lives. Preaching savings, thriftiness and moderation is wonderful, but doing it is ten times more difficult.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. “
You see the systematic issue here was not just easy credit, or greedy executives or even dumb homeowners. My point is we are satisfied with blowing our noses but not curing the damn cold! This was a scramble to prove our worth to society, to distinguish ourselves in society as “Big Swinging D!cks” and “Masters of the Universe”. Unsatisified even in our state of blessedness, we need to inflate our human balance sheets with hope the enormity of our assets make us somewhat unique, different or better. If only I can run faster! if only I can be smarter! if only I could make more money! Humanity needs to embrace a true heart change; one that doesn’t base its self-value on a successful stock portfolio or the square foot of a home.
Until we can get to that point, we shouldn’t be surprised when our own Jenga towers crumble again. I wonder why we keep on rebuilding the tower even though it eventually falls down again.
Gather together and come; assemble, you fugitives from the nations. Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot save. Isaiah 45:20
We’ve all stopped playing stupid games like Jenga; maybe we can stop finding our redemption in our own temporal gains.
Romans 3:23-24
Gather together and come; assemble, you fugitives from the nations.
Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that
cannot save.
Share this blog
Conspicuous Cynic 